Oddity in Vuescan with Nikon LS900

[brbo]

Your scanner is in very good shape. Since you scan with borders exposed you will notice mirror dust when it becomes a problem. It will start showing as increased density near the borders.

Cleaning is the easiest job on this scanners, but save it for when it's needed on your scanner.

 

[calico]

Your scanner is in very good shape. Since you scan with borders exposed you will notice mirror dust when it becomes a problem. It will start showing as increased density near the borders.

Cleaning is the easiest job on this scanners, but save it for when it's needed on your scanner.

Thank you for the tip re increased density near the borders. Also thanks for letting me know that cleaning scanner is not too hard to do......when the time comes!

 

[Archiloque]

All I can tell you is that you maybe don't want to do it yourself

If I remember correctly, I've tried contacting a company in Germany (might as well been the same) and got no reply. I'll see if I can find whom I contacted back then...


edit: According to my mails I got one positive response from EURECA Messtechnik GmbH 10 years ago and their quote was (in hindsight) more than reasonable (125 EUR (VAT included)). My "problem" stemmed from the fact that I thought that doing it myself will be money and time saved easyily. I tested the procedure on a CCD sensor from Canon 9000F flatbed that I had no use for and the cover peeled right off in a second. Encouraged by that...

Yes, that's the company in question. Seems they're still doing it. Did it turn out that bad when you tried by yourself ? I'll try messaging them, might be an interesting endeavour making the ultimate consumer scanner.

 

[brbo]

Did it turn out that bad when you tried by yourself ?

Well, I sold the scanner for parts Which wasn't that bad as I got almost as much for parts and holders as I paid for the scanner.

Yes, it was bad. I thought that if I could cut between the glass and the CCD housing with a razor that I could get them to separate (did so very easily on a Canon 9000F CCD) and glass would stay in one piece, but obviously the glue on this thing is very strong. At one point I got a little separation on one edge but then the glass broke off. After a lot of work I got all of it off, but I obviously damaged the CCD in the process.

At the time people seemed to think that the proper way to do this was to grind down the glass cover slowly. But as you probably know Eureca will get the cover off but there is no guaranty that the stress on the CCD during removal will not cause damage to it.

If I would to do it again, I would only try to have the cover removed if I had a spare CCD. Now, those are much easier to get nowadays as those scanners are butchered for lens or for other parts... Oh, there were no anti-reflection coatings on the cover glass, so I do believe that removing it should improve the scanner but I don't have any idea whether direct exposure to ambient could hurt the CCD in the long run.

 

[Archiloque]

But as you probably know Eureca will get the cover off but there is no guaranty that the stress on the CCD during removal will not cause damage to it.

Yes I do, I read the failure rate was particularly low though. They also state that removing the cover won't affect the sensor lifespan (if it's done properly). I have a spare non working unit... Maybe I should sent its sensor for the sake of it.

 

[koraks]

I wonder if maybe they use a solvent to remove the glass. Or perhaps they just heat the chip then pull off the glass. I've had silicon photodiodes that had a glass filter mounted that would come off if you heated the device for a while.

 

[brbo]

I wonder if maybe they use a solvent to remove the glass. Or perhaps they just heat the chip then pull off the glass.

That seems like a much easier procedure and I was quite surprised that people at that time seemed to suggest that the proper way to do it is to grind it off. But, I have no knowledge which way is better or proper and which way(s) are actually used by professionals. I edited my previous statement accordingly...

 

[calico]

Your scanner is in very good shape. Since you scan with borders exposed you will notice mirror dust when it becomes a problem. It will start showing as increased density near the borders.

Cleaning is the easiest job on this scanners, but save it for when it's needed on your scanner.

Hello again. This is a P.S. to my earlier reply.

I realize I'm not sure what you mean by "increased density near the borders" in regard to signs of dust on mirror.

Could you please explain what I would see exactly? Do you mean the negative will seem denser than it really is when I'm trying to scan it?

Thanks very much!

 

[brbo]

Do you mean the negative will seem denser than it really is when I'm trying to scan it?

Yes.

Consider this scan:



It's a scan of two half frame shots on Adoc Color Mission 200 (that folm builds density pretty quickly). The high density areas on both shots are close to the unexposed edges of the negative. If you scan such negatives on a scanner that is susceptible to flare and don't shield the unexposed edges of the film, you will get increased density (increased on the positive, diminished on the negative). As you can see, there is light creeping into the left edge of the second frame while the first frame is unaffected because the unexposed part of the negative is shielded by the vertical bar of the negative holder.



This is an extreme case on a scanner that is vulnerable to this problem (CanoScan FS4000US) and I'm not sure when it was last cleaned.

Compare this to the scan made with Microtek 4000tf :



You can do a similar test on your scanner to see what you might get in extreme conditions. And, as said before, Vuescan treats negatives differently than Nikon Scan. More exposure with not totally linear response of the sensor will mean that the unexposed areas will produce more visible light bleeding...

 

[calico]

Yes.

Consider this scan:



It's a scan of two half frame shots on Adoc Color Mission 200 (that folm builds density pretty quickly). The high density areas on both shots are close to the unexposed edges of the negative. If you scan such negatives on a scanner that is susceptible to flare and don't shield the unexposed edges of the film, you will get increased density (increased on the positive, diminished on the negative). As you can see, there is light creeping into the left edge of the second frame while the first frame is unaffected because the unexposed part of the negative is shielded by the vertical bar of the negative holder.



This is an extreme case on a scanner that is vulnerable to this problem (CanoScan FS4000US) and I'm not sure when it was last cleaned.

Compare this to the scan made with Microtek 4000tf :



You can do a similar test on your scanner to see what you might get in extreme conditions. And, as said before, Vuescan treats negatives differently than Nikon Scan. More exposure with not totally linear response of the sensor will mean that the unexposed areas will produce more visible light bleeding...

Wow, thank you for this detailed explanation with samples. Really appreciate.

I'm also struck by your last couple of sentences where you say Vuescan treats negatives differently than Nikon Scan. I guess that's why I get the ghost images (or bleed) outside of border with Vuescan and not with Nikon Scan.

So you are saying Vuescan's default settings give a negative more exposure than Nikon Scan? If I have a dense negative, Vuescan's default settings for exposure would produce better scan than Nikon Scan's default settings?

In Nikon Scan in the past, I have added analog gain for dense b&w negs. (I was using a lab for a while who was over-developing my film.)

(Sidenote: In Nikon Scan, I always scanned b&w negs as positives, then inverted in Photoshop. Images turned out better that way than if I scanned as negs. However, in Vuescan, they turn out better if I scan with the b&w neg setting.)

Also don't know what you mean by Vuescan "not having totally linear response."

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge.

(Note: Edited out a sentence which was incorrect above which would've been visible a while.)

 

[albireo]

Frank Phillips replied that what I'm seeing is caused by dirty mirror. Also said amount of contrast in image can affect what he called this "bleeding" of image outside black border. When I told him it's been seven years since Gleb Shtengel repaired and cleaned my LS9000, he felt sure mirror was dirty.

Then I went to Gleb's site where he had posted instructions for cleaning mirror. He mentioned that if your scanner has over 10,000 scans, you need to clean mirror. Also, focusing problems or degraded scans are symptoms of dirty mirror.

There is no way I've come anywhere near that many scans since Gleb repaired and cleaned my scanner in 2018. I've probably scanned less than 1,000 images since then. And I always keep the scanner enclosed in plastic when not in use. I have not had focusing problems or degraded scans.

Stephen Scharf also suggested dirty mirror. Also said to mask out edges of neg around image, which I don't want to do, as I like having the black border around images.

This morning I posed a question to them: If the ghost image is from a hardware problem such as dirty mirror, why doesn't this happen in scans from Nikon Scan? Only happens in Vuescan. Maybe it's some interaction between the hardware and the Vuescan software. Maybe Vuescan reacts differently to the reflections on the glass.

I do have the holder without the glass which I could try in Vuescan.

I don't think you've given them sufficient means to diagnose your issue. You have not posted the magnified details you've posted here in your Facebook post. Most people will very likely be browsing that page on their phone, and your issue is invisible from your full size samples as seen from a phone.

Having said that, the dust explanation cannot be discarded. I keep my 8000ED covered with a custom made thick protection at all times when not in use. I have no pets and don't smoke. I found I'm having to clean the mirror every 3 years or so. Dust on the mirror on these machines has two well known effects: it creates visible flare at high contrast boundaries and when scanning with Nikon scan, it imparts a noticeable magenta cast to your scans.

I wouldn't exclude the dust option but you'll need to share more data with people to reach a likely diagnosis.

Also can you experiment a little. How often does this issue manifest itself?

-black and white material yes/no
-colour negatives yes/no
-slides yes/no
-another version of vuescan yes/no
-another holder yes/no
- turn the image around in the holder. Where is the issue appearing? Same position or other dimension?
-mask the border of your holder with gaffer tape. Issue still there yes or no?

Nothing is obvious or stupid. And in fact, the explanation is often the simplest.

 

[brbo]

So you are saying Vuescan's default settings give a negative more exposure than Nikon Scan?

Yes, Vuescan and Nikon Scan (both at default settings) will get different raw data (I did apply the same gamma correction to all of them otherwise it would much harder for us humans to see the difference) from the negative (for scanners with independent RGB exposure). I don't have any Nikon scanner anymore so I can't demonstrate that, but I can show you the difference in raw data between Vuescan's 'Color Negative film' and 'Slide film' input type:

Slide film:



Color negative film:



As you can see, when in 'Color negative film' mode Vuescan will slightly lower the exposure for R channel, increase exposure for G and even more for B channel. That somewhat aligns R, G and B channels and in effect removes some of the orange mask which in theory could benefit scanners with lower dynamic range.

Now, Nikon Scan would do something like this:

If I have a dense negative, Vuescan's default settings for exposure would produce better scan than Nikon Scan's default settings?

In theory, yes. But sensor dynamic range and 16bit signal processing in Nikon CS 9000 should make that advantage negligible. Personally, I avoid scanning in Color negative mode since longer exposure means that film will get more heat and curl more. This is not a concern if you scan in glass holder, or course.

In Nikon Scan in the past, I have added analog gain for dense b&w negs. (I was using a lab for a while who was over-developing my film.)

Yes, Vuescan's equivalent is RGB exposure setting (plus individual R, G and B) which is automatically set by Vuescan depending on the preview scan analysis and film type mode. The difference between Nikon Scan and Vuescan with this settings is that by default Vuescan will change exposure and Nikon Scan will not and you have to do it yourself.

Also don't know what you mean by Vuescan "not having totally linear response."

Not Vuescan response. CCD sensor response. At least that is my explanation for why the effects is more visible with scanning in Vuescan. Since scanners do not get higher/lower exposure by altering light source brightness, but by the time the sensor's shutter is open there should not be a case when more light means more reflections. It's either that or there is some post-processing for that problem in Nikon Scan, but I doubt that is the case.

 

[calico]

I don't think you've given them sufficient means to diagnose your issue. You have not posted the magnified details you've posted here in your Facebook post. Most people will very likely be browsing that page on their phone, and your issue is invisible from your full size samples as seen from a phone.

Having said that, the dust explanation cannot be discarded. I keep my 8000ED covered with a custom made thick protection at all times when not in use. I have no pets and don't smoke. I found I'm having to clean the mirror every 3 years or so. Dust on the mirror on these machines has two well known effects: it creates visible flare at high contrast boundaries and when scanning with Nikon scan, it imparts a noticeable magenta cast to your scans.

I wouldn't exclude the dust option but you'll need to share more data with people to reach a likely diagnosis.

Also can you experiment a little. How often does this issue manifest itself?

-black and white material yes/no
-colour negatives yes/no
-slides yes/no
-another version of vuescan yes/no
-another holder yes/no
- turn the image around in the holder. Where is the issue appearing? Same position or other dimension?
-mask the border of your holder with gaffer tape. Issue still there yes or no?

Nothing is obvious or stupid. And in fact, the explanation is often the simplest.

Thanks for all of your input, but I'm getting enough help here, don't need to go to Facebook again. Also not necessary to spend a lot of time on experiments for an issue which isn't a big problem.

I have learned some things in discussions here and am grateful for that.

 

[calico]

Yes, Vuescan and Nikon Scan (both at default settings) will get different raw data (I did apply the same gamma correction to all of them otherwise it would much harder for us humans to see the difference) from the negative (for scanners with independent RGB exposure). I don't have any Nikon scanner anymore so I can't demonstrate that, but I can show you the difference in raw data between Vuescan's 'Color Negative film' and 'Slide film' input type:

Slide film:



Color negative film:



As you can see, when in 'Color negative film' mode Vuescan will slightly lower the exposure for R channel, increase exposure for G and even more for B channel. That somewhat aligns R, G and B channels and in effect removes some of the orange mask which in theory could benefit scanners with lower dynamic range.

Now, Nikon Scan would do something like this:





In theory, yes. But sensor dynamic range and 16bit signal processing in Nikon CS 9000 should make that advantage negligible. Personally, I avoid scanning in Color negative mode since longer exposure means that film will get more heat and curl more. This is not a concern if you scan in glass holder, or course.



Yes, Vuescan's equivalent is RGB exposure setting (plus individual R, G and B) which is automatically set by Vuescan depending on the preview scan analysis and film type mode. The difference between Nikon Scan and Vuescan with this settings is that by default Vuescan will change exposure and Nikon Scan will not and you have to do it yourself.



Not Vuescan response. CCD sensor response. At least that is my explanation for why the effects is more visible with scanning in Vuescan. Since scanners do not get higher/lower exposure by altering light source brightness, but by the time the sensor's shutter is open there should not be a case when more light means more reflections. It's either that or there is some post-processing for that problem in Nikon Scan, but I doubt that is the case.

Thank you so much. All of this is so interesting to me, as I've been trying to decide if I should use Nikon Scan again (as I finally revived it on an old Mac Mini) or keep using Vuescan on my Mac Studio.

At least now I have a better idea of what each software is doing.

Also, how exposure works in scanners is interesting -- that it's not brightness of light but time the sensor's shutter is open. So that's what I'm doing when adding analog gain in Nikon Scan, altering time shutter is open.

This is a totally new topic which you may have explanation for, as you have obviously compared Nikon Scan and Vuescan extensively:

When I scanned the same color neg in both Nikon Scan and Vuescan, so I could compare them, the Vuescan scan looked a bit sharper overall. I focused on same point in neg (a person's eye) and scans were done one right after the other, with neg in glass holder. I thought maybe there was a default sharpening set in Vuescan. But when I checked "Sharpen" in Filter tab, it was at "none." Do you know if there is a default sharpening happening underneath, even if "Sharpen" is at none?

Forgive me for asking another question! You've already taken so much time to answer me. If you don't have time to continue, I understand!

Thank you!

 

[brbo]

When I scanned the same color neg in both Nikon Scan and Vuescan, so I could compare them, the Vuescan scan looked a bit sharper overall. I focused on same point in neg (a person's eye) and scans were done one right after the other, with neg in glass holder. I thought maybe there was a default sharpening set in Vuescan. But when I checked "Sharpen" in Filter tab, it was at "none." Do you know if there is a default sharpening happening underneath, even if "Sharpen" is at none?

I never noticed that. Or heard people saying that Vuescan would sharpen scans when sharpening is turned off.

 

[calico]

I never noticed that. Or heard people saying that Vuescan would sharpen scans when sharpening is turned off.

Thanks.

I was really scrutinizing them, so maybe not something someone would notice otherwise.

Edit: Also, I'm viewing on a very hi-res (4K) monitor.

 

[koraks]

Also, how exposure works in scanners is interesting -- that it's not brightness of light but time the sensor's shutter is open.

Yes, although no actual shutter as such is present. The technical term usually used is 'integration time'. You can compare the sensor to a bucket, and the integration time is the time we allow the bucket to fill itself with water (=light or photons if you will). Ultimately, the bucket will contain an amount of water (electrical charge) and that amount is then measured. The shutter analogy works for all intents and purposes though; it's fine to use as a manner of speech.

 

[calico]

Yes, although no actual shutter as such is present. The technical term usually used is 'integration time'. You can compare the sensor to a bucket, and the integration time is the time we allow the bucket to fill itself with water (=light or photons if you will). Ultimately, the bucket will contain an amount of water (electrical charge) and that amount is then measured. The shutter analogy works for all intents and purposes though; it's fine to use as a manner of speech.

That's really interesting. I had been imagining an actual shutter over a sensor. But I see how it works as a manner of speech : )